Minutes Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development - Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Declassified1
AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
15 April 2021
Asocpv02add_2021
Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
Minutes
Public hearing on “Deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities”,
held by videoconference, on Tuesday, 16 March 2021
In the framework of the report currently in preparation on “Deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities” by
Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman (Netherlands, ALDE), the Committee held a public hearing composed of three
sessions.
Mr Leite Ramos, Committee Chairperson, briefly introduced the speakers and welcomed everyone to the
hearing.
Ms de Bruijn-Wezeman (as Rapporteur) pointed out that 2021 was an important year for mental health in the
Parliamentary Assembly, because it would be laying the groundwork for two key reports: 1) the report on
deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities already underway and 2) an opinion, for the organisation’s
Committee of Ministers, on the draft additional protocol to the Oviedo Convention on involuntary measures in
psychiatry, the work on which would probably start in autumn. There was an emerging consensus, at both
international and European level, that States had a responsibility to transition towards ending coercion in
mental health. Ending coercion in mental health and institutionalisation of persons with disabilities was
essential to safeguarding human rights and dignity. Institutionalised persons were disproportionally affected
by the Covid-19 pandemic, making this question all the more urgent.
Session 1: Deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities
Why deinstitutionalisation? What are the benefits of deinstitutionalisation, and how can they be maximised?
✓ Ms Dunja Mijatović, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
✓ Mr Gerard Quinn, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities
✓ Mr Andreas Accardo, Head of Unit, Institutional Co-operation and Networks, European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
✓ Mr Luk Zelderloo, Secretary General, European Association of Service providers for Persons
with Disabilities (EASPD)
Ms Mijatović underlined the urgency of addressing the issue of involuntary institutionalisation of persons with
mental health conditions or psychosocial disabilities. In her 2021 issue paper on “Protecting the right to health
through inclusive and resilient health care for all”, the Commissioner had made recommendations to the
member States on how to deal with mental health issues, including the following: making quality services
accessible to all; transitioning from institutionalisation to community-based services; and eliminating coercive
practices. These approaches should support the integration of mental health into primary care within the
framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The fact that the work
continued on the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention was regrettable, as it was based on a
biomedical approach that reduced mental health problems to mental disorders and enabled forced
confinement with virtually no limit on its duration. It was therefore paramount to call on the member States to
put an end to the approaches that had been proven to be inefficient, and to prevent practices that perpetuated
dehumanisation.
1The minutes were approved and declassified by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
at its meeting on 15 April 2021, held via videoconference.
________________________
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel.: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Mr Quinn highlighted the need for the Council of Europe to spread a unified message on deinstitutionalisation
and community inclusion. Institutionalisation caused three different types of damage for the individual and for
the community: firstly, the intimate bond between the person and the space called “home” was broken, as a
portal to human interaction; secondly, in an institution, “voice, choice and control” were silenced; lastly, the
relationship with the community changed in a congregated setting, as a “group home” did not reflect the
personality of the individual living in it. The Covid-19 pandemic had demonstrated that deinstitutionalisation
was not only a human rights issue, but also a public health one. It had exposed the need to use the EU recovery
funds to endorse a new human rights-based healthcare model. As Europe moved towards
deinstitutionalisation, an intersectional approach had to be developed and the Council of Europe could be a
role model in this process.
Mr Accardo presented six lessons, drawn from practical experience in the EU member States, that could help
the transition from institutionalisation to community-based living. First, the aim was not mere
deinstitutionalisation of the persons with disabilities, but genuine transition to independent living. Second,
international strategies had to be adequately funded, independently monitored and complemented by national
strategies. Third, communities needed to change attitudes towards persons with disabilities - paternalism and
stigma had to be addressed. Fourth, achieving independent living implied more engaging work for local
communities. Fifth, guidance had to be provided for applying law and policy to daily realities. Finally, effective
community-based services needed to be put in place and tailored to support this transition.
Mr Zelderloo reminded the members that deinstitutionalisation was not only about persons with disabilities,
but also children, seniors, the homeless, people struggling with mental health issues and, ultimately, it was
about building a more inclusive society. That required developing inclusive education, labour markets, cultural
participation and empowerment. This process demanded awareness raising, support for families and
communities, and investments in services.
Ms Fresko-Rolfo asked what the experts’ view was on how people with disabilities could achieve an
independent meaningful life, free from multilevel discrimination.
Baroness Massey asked how serious the impact of institutionalisation was on families, especially with regard
to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ms Wonner pointed out that the hearing was a step in the right direction. Ms Wonner’s most recent report
dealt with the stigmatisation of people with chronic illnesses and disabilities and called on member States to
ensure that everyone enjoyed equal rights, including with regard to access to health insurance and the labour
market. Unfortunately, people with psychosocial disabilities faced stigmatisation in many countries where
institutionalisation had increased.
Mr O’Reilly recalled that, apart from being an urgent human rights issue, deinstitutionalisation was also
beneficial to the economy, and asked the speakers what the Parliamentary Assembly could do to further stress
this point.
Ms Tanguy asked what the situation was in terms of the transition towards community-based services, and
what member States should do with respect to their public policies to achieve deinstitutionalisation, especially
of children.
Mr Zenderloo commented that the economic argument could be very effective: people in institutions had to
be fully supported while in community-based services they not only needed less support, but they could also
be empowered to contribute themselves towards the well-being of their communities.
Mr Quinn suggested that a new social contract was needed. Families and women, who played an important
role as informal caregivers, had been heavily penalised in the past; that was why it was also important to work
co-operatively. Moreover, the transition from institution- to community-based services could only be possible
if there was strong political will, since the necessary tools were already well known.
Mr Accardo stressed the urgency of encouraging member States to use Covid-19 recovery funds for
deinstitutionalisation and of ensuring the conformity of national strategies with the new European Disability
Strategy. Moreover, monitoring how the funds were spent would be crucial for ensuring the effectiveness of
recovery strategies.
2AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Session 2: Ending coercion in mental health
How can we best protect persons with mental health conditions or psychosocial disabilities from violations of
their fundamental rights and their human dignity? What is the emerging consensus on how to end coercion in
mental health? What are States’ responsibilities?
✓ Ms Ritva Halila, (Finland), Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO)
✓ Mr John Patrick Clarke, Vice President, European Disability Forum (EDF)
✓ Ms Jolijn Santegoeds, Board member, European Network for (ex)-Users and Survivors of
Psychiatry (ENUSP) (NB: Unfortunately, due to technical connection problems Ms Santegoeds
was not able to participate in the hearing. Her contribution has thus been included as an appendix
to these minutes.)
✓ Ms Reina De Bruijn-Wezeman, former PACE rapporteur on “Ending coercion in mental health:
the need for a human rights-based approach”
Ms Halila pointed out that, from a medical perspective, psychiatric disorders were treatable and, in some
cases, curable diseases. Hospitalisation was sometimes needed in emergency situations, similarly to the case
of highly contagious diseases, when the patients could be hospitalised without their consent. In these
situations, the balance between the right to self-determination and the right to life was at stake. As requested
by the Committee of Ministers, the aim of DH-BIO was to create an international legally-binding instrument
that reduced involuntary measures as much as possible without, nonetheless, abandoning a patient in need.
The draft additional protocol to the Oviedo Convention viewed involuntary measures as the last resort, and
included protective measures, such as the possibility to submit a complaint to a court, the right to legal
assistance, the right to a second opinion and the monitoring of measures. All restrictions of human rights had
to have a legal basis.
Mr Clarke explained that involuntary treatments were violations of patients' fundamental rights: they created
trauma, solidifying discrimination through paternalistic approaches. The only way to protect these persons was
by using a human rights-based approach. Despite an overall international consensus on deinstitutionalisation,
the discourse was likely to depend too much on the institutional “territory”, as different representatives
intervened in different settings. Member States should comply with the legally-binding provisions of the CRPD,
rather than legitimise the outdated contents of the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention.
Ms de Bruijn-Wezeman reminded the members that already in 2016 the Assembly had adopted
Recommendation 2091 making the case against a Council of Europe legal instrument on involuntary measures
in psychiatry, and had reiterated that message in 2019 with its unanimously adopted Resolution and
Recommendation on ending coercion in mental health. Unfortunately, the Committee of Ministers had not
heeded the central recommendation and had allowed work on the draft Additional protocol to the Oviedo
Convention to be continued. However, guidelines on ending coercion were also now being drafted, providing
positive examples of voluntary measures. Member States should stop practices that did not respect human
rights and had not be proven fruitful or cost effective.
Ms Halila expressed her full support for deinstitutionalisation of people with disabilities, which was in line with
her current work.
Session 3: Good practices regarding voluntary measures in psychiatry
Which good practices can be identified? How can they be transposed across borders? How can their
effectiveness, and the continued satisfaction of users, be monitored?
✓ Ms Michelle Funk, Unit Head, Policy, Law and Human Rights, Department of Mental Health &
Substance Use, World Health Organization (WHO)
✓ Ms Ritva Halila, DH-BIO Chair
✓ Ms Stephanie Wooley, ENUSP
✓ Mr Jose Maria Solé Chavero, EASPD Board Member
Ms Funk presented WHO’s QualityRights initiative to improve the quality of care in mental health and social
care services. WHO had developed a new series of guidance materials, to support the development of health
services that did not use coercive practices, but rather promoted participation and community inclusion by
addressing work, family, and education. The recommendations were accompanied by seven technical
packages, each encompassing a specific category of service required for a fully responsive mental health
system (crisis services, hospital-based services, networks of services, and others). At the end of each
package, examples of practical actions were included, to facilitate implementation.
3AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Ms Halila explained that in addition to the preparation of the draft Additional Protocol, DH-BIO was collecting
examples of good practices that promoted voluntary care and prevented involuntary measures. In the last few
years, DH-BIO had been doing valuable work on collecting and sharing such good practices already, but these
were now being collated into a study.
Ms Wooley explained that in her view the draft Additional Protocol would worsen the situation if it was adopted.
One of the main problems was the lack of alternative choices, so that people often ended up in an institution
“by default”. Moreover, Lived Experience Advisory Panels were needed to develop a system that would be in
compliance with human rights, with dignity and autonomy, with the right of equal recognition before the law
and the right to be free from all forms of torture and ill treatment. Therefore, possible ways of facilitating the
transition were: full involvement of the recipients; training of professionals; improvement of physical
environments; effective co-operation at the local level; monitoring and reviewing of any use of coercion, and
implementation of specific guidelines and recommendations.
Mr Solé Chavero presented a practical example of deinstitutionalisation, stating that 17 years ago his
organisation had succeeded in closing a mental health institution in Catalonia that had housed more than
500 residents. The first step had been to block new admissions and to reinforce community-based mental
health services. There were many different impeding factors, but there was only one solution for all of them:
strong political engagement and commitment. In the future, there would be many obstacles to
deinstitutionalisation, including lack of funding for community-based services. The most important obstacle
could be noncompliance of national legal frameworks with the human rights-based approach as enshrined in
the CRPD.
Mr Amraoui highlighted the need for raising awareness of the situation of women in the context of
institutionalisation, which was different and often more difficult.
Conclusions
Ms de Bruijn-Wezeman thanked all the speakers and the audience, reiterating that the times required
investments in people rather than in buildings. She agreed with the speakers who believed that the draft
Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention was not compliant with the CRPD and called for the
reinforcement of a human rights-based approach.
4AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Appendix I
European Network of (Ex-) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
Vesterbrogade 103, 1.sal
1620 København V, Denmark
enusp.info@gmail.com / www.enusp.org
PACE AS/Soc Public hearing on Deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities, 16 March 2021 (on
the KUDO platform)
Contribution by Jolijn Santegoeds, board member of the European Network of Users, Ex-users and Survivors
of Psychiatry, ENUSP.
Email: tekeertegendeisoleer@hotmail.com, enusp.info@gmail.com
Hereby my written contribution, because a power cut prevented me from delivering my speech and further
participating in the hearing.
I would like to react to the comments made by Ms Ritva Halila, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on
Bioethics (DH-BIO). She mentioned that the Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention is intended as
a legal instrument to prevent abuse and set more uniform standards on the use of coercion, and that this would
prevent harm and save lives.
I strongly disagree.
Forced interventions in mental health care, such as solitary confinement, restraints, forced medication and
forced institutionalisation are very harmful and do more harm than good.
There is no therapeutic purpose. For example: Being confined does not increase well-being.
(I can testify from my own experience here. I was locked up and tied to a bed myself, at age 16, after
a suicide attempt, which was called “being a danger to myself”, and that phrasing led to long-term
solitary confinement, and the national law justified these measures. But it was horrible and made me
lose faith even more, leading to more suicide attempts. The people that who were supposed to help
me did horrible things, and it became a chain of escalations).
Coercion does not lead to more safety, or recovery of mental health. On the contrary: By suffering,
powerlessness, and a lack of support, the risks for increasing psychosocial problems and escalation increase.
Coercion is the opposite of care. Fear, resistance, crying and screaming are some of the typical first reactions
given by persons subjected to coercion, which actually clearly illustrate the counterproductivity of coercion on
wellbeing and mental health.
The collective experiences of users, ex-users and survivors clearly show that such measures have nothing to
do with protection of rights. Obviously, coercion is actually a deprivation of rights.
Coercion in mental health care is causing tremendous suffering and powerlessness with consent of the
authorities of the State, and the people subjected to it are made voiceless by deprivation of legal capacity and
liberty, which disable the person from defending themselves or challenging those decisions, and therefore
these practices amount to torture and ill-treatment.
And obviously, torture must be banned.
Ms Halila claims that in cultures without legal structures and rights, there is “mistreatment”. Yet, ENUSP
flags that also with the legal frameworks in place, there is mistreatment and the situation is no different –
except that those measures are no longer viewed as illegal but become “acceptable practices”.
(As an illustration: perhaps you know about the Dutch scandal several years ago, where a boy was
tied to a wall in the Netherlands for 3 years, and that practice was considered “legal” because the
assumption was that the boy could become agitated, and under the Dutch laws the presumed “danger”
justified continuing the restraints, and since the presumption of danger was present throughout the
years, there was no actual end to it, so the legal standards were in fact met. This caused public
outrage, and eventually he was freed).
Such practices should not be legalised at all. To create acceptance of such practices by legislation is actually
not progress, it is deterioration because it creates impunity for human rights violations.
The UN CRPD is clear in the call for abolition of involuntary treatments and for deinstitutionalisation, and
Europe should lead the way forwards, not backwards.
5AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
The Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention is setting the bar even lower than the previous global
standards dating from 1991, and the supposed safeguards of “least restrictive option, only as a last
resort, as short as possible, as little as possible” all have not worked out, as we see in the way that
coercion is on the rise all over the world. We witness in Europe that the number of cases of coercion has been
on the rise for decades, including in countries with legal frameworks, such as France for example. The
conditions of institutions around Europe have been documented by various organisations and show
unacceptable, gross and systemic human rights violations, where people are “stored”, deprived and restrained
under very degrading and harsh conditions, with e.g. rats running around and other serious neglect. This is
inhuman. This can never be the norm of how persons with disabilities are treated. A need for support should
never result in human rights violations.
For many decades coercion has been allowed in Europe, and was considered justified “in the absence of
alternatives”. Which made pure negligence a justified excuse for torture, giving States leeway to use cheap
and harmful measures of social control, and to avoid investments in the development of supportive mental
health services. Currently the absence of alternatives is still dominating the current situation in most countries,
and the supposed “last resort option” of involuntary treatment is a widespread default practice, causing
thousands of people to suffer.
The only thing that actually makes a difference in real practices on the ground, is the existence of so-called
“alternatives”. Once again it should be noted that the human rights based practices should not be referred to
as “alternatives”, but actually show the “support gap” in the basic spectrum of services that support inclusion,
and this absence of proper support has caused up until today a culture of torture.
In practice, in most countries there is this support gap and there are no actual “alternatives” to
coercion. The right to health and the right to be free from torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment actually demand that a proper baseline of services be set up and no recourse to
coercion ever taken again. And this cannot wait. The abolition of torture is not an issue of progressive
realisation, but it has to be done without any delay. The doors must be opened, and all persons must enjoy
freedom of choice in treatment and in residence. Community-based support should facilitate independent living
and inclusion in the community.
The lack of community-based support is actually the core driver of institutionalisation, and this is not
only limited to a lack of specific psychosocial support, but also to a lack of mainstream support options, which
can lead to poverty, homelessness, exclusion and violence towards persons with psychosocial disabilities,
which are all used as reasons for institutionalisation. The lack of community-based support is not decreased
with the use of coercion, and the situation is not getting any better by continuing along these lines. It is purely
facilitating exclusion.
The conditions in psychiatric institutions are not those of a wellness resort. In most places it is the total
opposite, a dreadful place, especially in central, eastern, and southern parts of Europe, but not only.
Institutionalisation as an answer to psychosocial support needs is obsolete, since support need not be linked
to a fixed location, but could be mobilised, so there is no need for deprivation of liberty to provide
psychosocial support.
Ms Halila mentioned “shared decision making” which is a paternalistic interpretation of the right to legal
capacity and the right to support in the exercise of legal capacity. Mental capacity and legal capacity are
distinct concepts. Mental capacities vary from person to person, but the right to legal capacity is the same for
everyone. Legal capacity means being entitled to all fundamental human rights on an equal basis with others,
including the right to be recognised as a person under the law, with one’s own legal standing and legal agency.
In simpler words, it comprises the right to decide about your own affairs. To take that right away is taking
personhood and identity away, since our choices and decisions reflect our character and make us who we are,
and we are a diverse population and not a uniform mass. Depriving a person of legal capacity is therefore
often called “civil death”.
Support in the exercise of legal capacity is something fundamentally different from depriving people of this
core human right. Support may comprise assisting a person in understanding the matter at stake, yet the
actual decision-making power should remain with the person, as a core human right.
The Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention perpetuates stigmatising terminology such as
“persons unable to consent” which is mostly based on a harmful stereotype and puts for example a
derogatory label on the persons who scream that they do not want to be locked up or to be drugged with
psychopharmaceuticals against their will, or do not want electroshock therapy and to be treated this way.
The Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention suggests measures such as guardianship to deprive
the person of the ability to have a final say over their own affairs, in order to subject the person to the decision
6AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
of others on treatments and placements against their will, even when there is clear resistance. In my opinion,
the deprivation of legal capacity is actually the key to all other violations as well, since to stop listening means
to stop seeing the other person as a person.
The deprivation of rights by coercion in mental health care as an answer to psychosocial support needs is not
a solution, it is a problem. Continuing these practices is certainly not in our “best interest”.
The argument by Ms Halila, Chair of DH-BIO, that a choice for “reduction of coercion” instead of
abandoning coercion would be a strategic choice so as to find a common ground through the Draft Additional
Protocol to the Oviedo Convention, makes no sense, since coercion has become unacceptable under mental
health support practices. It is not strategic to give leeway to human rights violations and to neglect the right to
the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. There is no compromise possible when it comes
to banning torture. The only right thing to do is to end coercion and realise deinstitutionalisation by realising
community-based support.
What is needed is a moratorium on all forms of coercion in mental health care. The simplest solution
that can start today is to NOT to start any new torture cases, and NOT to start preventative and arbitrary
detention based on presumptions, such as ‘dangerousness” or “need for treatment”. Also NOT to start any
new admissions in institutions, because institutionalisation demonstrates a failure to include a person in the
community.
We cannot wait to take action until after the Covid-19 pandemic, because the suffering inside institutions
is horrible and unacceptable. The Covid-19 pandemic has in fact worsened the situation for persons in
institutions even more, and the human rights crisis in mental health care has actually doubled.
Outside institutions, in the community as well, people are suffering without having their psychosocial needs
met due to a lack of community-based support in both specific and mainstream services, which eventually
leads to psychosocial suffering of the population without available support, and a further rise in
institutionalisation as well as psychosocial crisis situations and escalations, not to mention an over-reliance on
psychotropic drugs. This can be witnessed throughout Europe. The Covid-19 pandemic also sharpens these
existing gaps in the community.
There is an increasing shortage of actual psychosocial support across the board, and the Covid-19
pandemic has worsened the situation even more.
The WHO constitution states: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Yet, while tireless efforts are made to enable medical support
during the Covid-19 pandemic, only little efforts are made to protect the psychosocial health of the population,
or to support persons with psychosocial disabilities in their needs.
What is needed now, is to give high urgency to the development of community-based support
practices, and to actually disable any recourse to coercion or institutionalisation and to make large
investments in community-based support in a wide variety, from informal to formal support, from disability
specific to mainstream support, and with specific attention for vulnerable and oppressed people such as
migrants, youth, persons with disabilities, persons identifying as LGBTQIA and more.
And while the DH-BIO Committee still stoically argues that their Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo
Convention is “in line with the CRPD” in their opinion, it obviously is not in line with the UN CRPD, as shown
by the fact that the UN CRPD Committee itself calls publicly on States to oppose and withdraw the Draft
Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention.
Persons in crisis deserve more than just another procedure to deprive them of their rights. It is time to actually
realise human rights-based support in the community, and the time is now.
ENUSP recommends:
• Withdraw the Draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention.
• Issue a Council of Europe recommendation on putting an end to coercion in mental health care and
promoting good practices.
• Install a moratorium on all forms of coercion in mental health care with urgency.
• Remedy the support gap by establishing a large variety of community-based support options, to be
realised with high urgency.
• The Covid-19 pandemic must not cause delay, but rather speed up the process of
deinstitutionalisation.
• All parts of the processes must be done in close consultation with persons with psychosocial
disabilities through their representative organisations.
7AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et du développement durable
Chairperson / Présidente :
M. Luís LEITE RAMOS Portugal
Vice-Chairpersons / Vice-Présidents :
Mr John HOWELL United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni
Mme Edite ESTRELA Portugal
Mr Andrej HUNKO Germany/ Allemagne
ZZ… Albania / Albanie ZZ...
M. Pere LÓPEZ Andorra / Andorre Mme Mònica BONELL
M. Mikayel MELKUMYAN Armenia / Arménie Mr Ruben RUBINYAN
Mr Franz Leonhard ESSL Austria / Autriche Mr Michel REIMON
Mr Stefan SCHENNACH Austria / Autriche Ms Doris BURES
Ms Nigar ARPADARAI Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan Ms Parvin KARIMZADA
Ms Sevinj FATALIYEVA Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan Ms Konul NURULLAYEVA
Mr Bob De BRABANDERE Belgium / Belgique Ms Els van HOOF
M. Simon MOUTQUIN Belgium / Belgique Mme Latifa GAHOUCHI
Ms Snježana Bosnia and Herzegovina /
Mr Amir FAZLIĆ
NOVAKOVIĆ BURSAĆ Bosnie-Herzégovine
Mr Nikolay ALEKSANDROV Bulgaria / Bulgarie Mr Krasimir BOGDANOV
Mr Georgi YORDANOV Bulgaria / Bulgarie Ms Ivelina VASSILEVA
Ms Zdravka BUŠIĆ Croatia / Croatie Ms Rada BORIĆ
Ms Christiana EROTOKRITOU Cyprus / Chypre Mr Constantinos EFSTATHIOU
Czech Republic /
Ms Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ Mr Jiři STRÝČEK
République tchèque
Czech Republic /
Mr Jaroslav KYTÝR Ms Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ
République tchèque
Mr Henrik MØLLER Denmark / Danemark Mr Jan E. JØRGENSEN
Mr Urmas REITELMANN Estonia / Estonie Ms Vilja TOOMAST
Ms Minna REIJONEN Finland / Finlande Ms Tarja FILATOV
Mme Jennifer DE TEMMERMAN France M. Dimitri HOUBRON
M. Bruno FUCHS France Mme Martine WONNER
M. Alain MILON France M. Christian KLINGER
Mme Laurence
France Mme Sophie AUCONIE
TRASTOUR-ISNART
Ms Mariam KVRIVISHVILI Georgia / Géorgie Mr Fridon INJIA
8AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Ms Sybille BENNING Germany / Allemagne Mr Josef RIEF
Mr Andrej HUNKO Germany / Allemagne Ms Bela BACH
Mr Matern von MARSCHALL Germany / Allemagne Mr Christian PETRY
Mr Ulrich OEHME Germany / Allemagne Mr Christoph HOFFMANN
Mr Sokratis FAMELLOS Greece / Grèce Mr Kyriakos VELOPOULOS
Ms Nina KASIMATI Greece / Grèce Ms Foteini PIPILI
Ms Mónika BARTOS Hungary / Hongrie Mr Jenő MANNINGER
Mr Róbert DUDÁS Hungary / Hongrie Mme Zita GURMAI
Mr Bergþór ÓLASON Iceland / Islande Mr Birgir THÓRARINSSON
Mr Joseph O'REILLY Ireland / Irlande Ms Lynn BOYLAN
Mr Fabio DI MICCO Italy / Italie Mr Gianluca PERILLI
Mr Emilio FLORIS Italy / Italie Ms Maria RIZZOTTI
Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO Italy / Italie Ms Barbara GUIDOLIN
Mr Gianfranco RUFA Italy / Italie Mr Manuel VESCOVI
Mr Uldis BUDRIĶIS Latvia / Lettonie ZZ...
Ms Susanne EBERLE-STRUB Liechtenstein ZZ...
Mr Gintautas PALUCKAS Lithuania / Lituanie Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS
Mme Françoise HETTO-GAASCH Luxembourg M. Marc SPAUTZ
Mr Ian CASTALDI PARIS Malta / Malte Ms Rosianne CUTAJAR
Republic of Moldova /
Ms Inga GRIGORIU Mr Liviu VOVC
République de Moldova
M. José BADIA Monaco / Monaco Mme Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO
Mr Miloš KONATAR Montenegro / Monténégro Mr Marko KOVAČEVIĆ
Ms Reina de BRUIJN-WEZEMAN Netherlands / Pays-Bas Mr Bob van PAREREN
Ms Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN Netherlands / Pays-Bas ZZ...
North Macedonia /
Ms Artina QAZIMI Mr Vlado MISAJLOVSKI
Macédoine du Nord
Ms Silje HJEMDAL Norway / Norvège Ms Emilie Enger MEHL
Ms Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA Poland / Pologne Mr Tomasz LATOS
Mr Bolesław PIECHA Poland / Pologne Mr Zbigniew GIRZYŃSKI
Mr Andrzej SZEJNA Poland / Pologne Mr Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI
Mme Edite ESTRELA Portugal Mr Pedro CEGONHO
M. Luís LEITE RAMOS Portugal Ms Jamila MADEIRA
M. Viorel Riceard BADEA Romania / Roumanie ZZ...
Ms Cristina-Mădălina PRUNĂ Romania / Roumanie ZZ...
Ms Adriana Diana TUȘA Romania / Roumanie ZZ...
9AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Russian Federation /
Mr Oleg ALEKSEEV Mr Denis GUSEV
Fédération de Russie
Russian Federation /
Ms Alfiia KOGOGINA Ms Oksana PUSHKINA
Fédération de Russie
Russian Federation /
Mr Vladimir KRUGLYI Mr Iaroslav NILOV
Fédération de Russie
Russian Federation /
Mr Sergei PAKHOMOV Mr Alexandr PROKOPIEV
Fédération de Russie
M. Giuseppe Maria MORGANTI San Marino / Saint-Marin Mr Marco NICOLINI
Mr Enis IMAMOVIĆ Serbia / Serbie Mr Milan RADIN
Mr Zoran TOMIĆ Serbia / Serbie Mr Gojko PALALIĆ
Slovak Republic /
Mme Anna ZÁBORSKÁ Mr Juraj ŠELIGA
République slovaque
Ms Andreja ZABRET Slovenia / Slovénie Ms Suzana LEP ŠIMENKO
Ms María Teresa
Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO Spain / Espagne
JIMÉNEZ-BECERRIL
Ms Carmen LEYTE Spain / Espagne Mr Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Ms Susana SUMELZO Spain / Espagne Ms Esther PEÑA
Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON Sweden / Suède Mr Ola MÖLLER
Ms Carina OHLSSON Sweden / Suède Ms Annicka ENGBLOM
Ms Sibel ARSLAN Switzerland / Suisse M. Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ
M. Jean-Pierre GRIN Switzerland / Suisse Mme Ada MARRA
Ms Emine Nur GÜNAY Turkey / Turquie Mr Mehmet Mehdi EKER
Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI Turkey / Turquie Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK
Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY Turkey / Turquie Ms Feleknas UCA
Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE Turkey / Turquie M. Haluk KOÇ
Ms Olena KHOMENKO Ukraine Ms Larysa BILOZIR
Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA Ukraine Mr Andrii LOPUSHANSKYI
Mr Oleksandr SKICHKO Ukraine Ms Lesia ZABURANNA
Mr Richard BACON United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Mr Duncan BAKER
Mr Geraint DAVIES United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Mr Steve DOUBLE
Mr John HOWELL United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Mr Mark FLETCHER
Baroness Doreen E. MASSEY United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Ms Ruth JONES
OTHER PARLIAMENTARIANS PRESENT / AUTRES PARLEMENTAIRES PRESENTS
Ms / Mme Liliana Tanguy.......................................................................................................................... France
Mr / M. Ahmet Yildiz................................................................................................................... Turkey / Turquie
Mr / M. Oleksii Goncharenko ................................................................................................................... Ukraine
10AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
PARTNERS FOR DEMOCRACY / PARTENAIRES POUR LA DEMOCRATIE
Mr / M. Allal Amraoui ................................................................................................................ Morocco / Maroc
EMBASSIES / PERMANENT REPRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS
AMBASSADES / REPRESENTATIONS ET DELEGATIONS PERMANENTES
Ms / Mme Iryna Pospielova, Deputy to the Permanent Representative, Permanent Representation of Ukraine
to the Council of Europe / Adjointe du Représentant Permanent, Représentation permanente de l’Ukraine
auprès du Conseil de l'Europe
SECRETARIAT OF DELEGATION OR OF POLITICAL GROUP /
SECRETARIAT DE DELEGATION OU DE GROUPE POLITIQUE
Mr / M. Georg Magerl, Delegation Secretary, Austrian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation autrichienne auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Sonja Langenhaeck, Delegation Secretary, Belgian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation belge auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Adisa Fišić-Barukčija, Delegation Secretary, delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to PACE /
Secrétaire de délégation, Délégation de la Bosnie-Herzégovine auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Martina Petek-Stupar, Delegation Secretary, Croatian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de
délégation, Délégation croate auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Elena Persiani, Delegation Secretary, Cypriot delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
Délégation chypriote auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Veronika Krupová, Delegation Secretary, Czech delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
Délégation tchèque auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Enel Otstavel, Delegation Secretary, Estonian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
Délégation estonienne auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Gunilla Carlander, Delegation Secretary, Finnish delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
Délégation finlandaise auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Evangelia Spanoudaki, Greek delegation to PACE / Délégation grecque auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Selija Levin, Delegation Secretary, Lithuanian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation lituanienne auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Victoria Campana, Head of International Affairs Section, Monegasque delegation to PACE / Chef
de Section pour les Affaires internationales, délégation monégasque auprès l’APCE
Ms / Mme Dorthe Bakke, Head of International Affairs Section, Norwegian delegation to PACE / Chef de
Section pour les Affaires internationals, délégation norvégienne auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Ana Guapo, Delegation Secretary, Portuguese delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation de Portugal auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Carmen Ionescu, Delegation Secretary, Romanian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation de la Roumanie auprès de l'APCE
Mr / M. Răzvan Tănase, Delegation Secretary, Romanian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation de la Roumanie auprès de l'APCE
Mr / M. Pavel Ermoshin, Delegation Secretary, Russian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation russe auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Maria Nikulina, Delegation Secretary, Russian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation russe auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Elena Vekshina, Delegation Secretary, Russian delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation russe auprès de l’APCE
Ms / Mme Johanna Ingvarsson, International Advisor, Swedish delegation to PACE / Conseillère
internationale, délégation suédoise après de l’APCE
Mr / M. Yaron Gamburg, Delegation Secretary, Israeli delegation to PACE / Secrétaire de délégation,
délégation israëlienne à l’APCE
Ms / Mme Francesca Arbogast, Secretary of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group (SOC) / Secrétaire
du Groupe des socialistes, démocrates et verts (SOC)
11AS/Soc (2021) PV 02add
Ms / Mme Maria Bigday, Secretary of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) / Secrétaire
de l’Alliance des démocrates et des libéraux pour l'Europe (ADLE)
Ms / Mme Anna Kolotova, Secretary of the Group of the Unified European Left (UEL) / Secrétaire du Groupe
pour la gauche unitaire européenne (GUE)
Ms / Mme Natalia Odzimkowska, Secretary of the European People's Party Group (EPP / CD) / Secrétaire du
Groupe du Parti populaire européen (PPE/ DC)
Ms / Mme Denise O’Hara, Secretary of the European People's Party Group (EPP / CD) / Secrétaire du Groupe
du Parti populaire européen (PPE/ DC)
EXPERTS / EXPERT.E.S
Mr / M. Andreas Accardo, Head of Unit, Institutional Co-operation and Networks, European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights / Chef d'unité, Coopération institutionnelle et réseaux, Agence des droits fondamentaux
de l’Union européenne (FRA)
Mr / M. Jose Maria Solé Chavero, Board Member, EASPD (European Association of Service providers for
Persons with Disabilities) / Membre du Comité de Direction, l’Association Européenne des Prestataires de
services pour Personnes en situation de Handicap (EASPD)
Mr / M. John Patrick Clarke, Vice President, European Disability Forum / Vice-président, Forum Européen des
Personnes Handicapées (EDF)
Ms / Mme Michelle Funk, Head of Unit: Policy, Law and Human Rights, Department of Mental Health &
Substance Use, World Health Organization (WHO) / Cheffe d'unité, Politique et Droits de l’Homme,
Département de Santé mentale et abus de substances psychoactives, l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé
(OMS)
Ms / Mme Ritva Halila, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics / Présidente du Comité de
bioéthique du Conseil de l'Europe (DH-BIO)
Mr / M. Gerard Quinn, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities / Rapporteur spécial
des Nations Unies sur les droits des personnes handicapées
Ms / Mme Stephanie Wooley, European Network for (ex)-Users and Survivors of Psychiatry / Réseau
européen des (ex-)usagers et survivants de la psychiatrie
Mr / M. Luk Zelderloo, Secretary General EASPD (European Association of Service providers for Persons with
Disabilities), Ambassador Zero Project / Secrétaire général, l’Association Européenne des Prestataires de
services pour Personnes en situation de Handicap
COUNCIL OF EUROPE SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Ms / Mme Dunja Mijatović, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights / Commissaire aux droits de
l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
SECRETARIAT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY /
SECRÉTARIAT DE L’ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE
Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development /
Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et du développement durable
Ms / Mme Tanja Kleinsorge ....................................................... Head of the Secretariat / Cheffe du Secrétariat
Ms / Mme Aiste Ramanauskaite ..............................Secretary to the Committee / Secrétaire de la commission
Ms / Mme Yulia Pererva ..........................................Secretary to the Committee / Secrétaire de la commission
Mr / M. Guillaume Parent ............................. Co-Secretary to the Committee / Co-Secrétaire de la commission
Ms / Mme Prisca Barthel........................................................... Europe Prize section / Section Prix de l’Europe
Ms / Mme Bogdana Buzarnescu ....................................................... Principal Assistant / Assistante Principale
Ms / Mme Melissa Charbonnel .......................................................................................... Assistant / Assistante
Ms / Mme Francesca Gelli ......................................................................................................Trainee / Stagiaire
Ms / Mme Sarah Minery..........................................................................................................Trainee / Stagiaire
12You can also read
